California's got a new problem: Too much money. This year's expected surplus of $1.2B-$4.4B comes three years after the state faced a deficit of nearly $60B. Governor Brown - arguing the surplus is the result of a flood of capital-gains realizations ahead of higher 2013 tax rates - wants to put the money aside. The legislature - dominated by Brown's own party - wants to spend it. [View news story]
bbro,
A retroactive tax is hardly a fair policy. That is as close as a government can get to stealing. Clearly in the short run you can manufacture a surplus if you want to by taking it away from the "rich" and the most productive segments of industry.
But will it be sustainable?
I say no. Especially now that those capital gains were harvested in anticipation of the threatened rise in taxes.
Reuters’ Robert Campbell thinks Keystone XL (TRP) has become a victim of political posturing and says a rival plan, ETP's Trunkline, is being held to a far lower standard thanks to an incoherent U.S. environmental policy. But if a pipeline isn’t built, crude will move by more carbon intensive methods that also are susceptible to accidents. Indeed, moving oil by road or rail is no longer seen as a stopgap until pipelines are built. [View news story]
And Warren Buffett, Obama's best business bud benefits the most of all when oil is transported by rail precisely because that pipeline is not being built.
He would do anything to stop it and it looks like he has :)
Now that's getting a return on investment for your crony capitalist.
Reuters’ Robert Campbell thinks Keystone XL (TRP) has become a victim of political posturing and says a rival plan, ETP's Trunkline, is being held to a far lower standard thanks to an incoherent U.S. environmental policy. But if a pipeline isn’t built, crude will move by more carbon intensive methods that also are susceptible to accidents. Indeed, moving oil by road or rail is no longer seen as a stopgap until pipelines are built. [View news story]
The oil companies should start using babies of all types (human, seal, bear, etc.) in their advertising with the slogan: "Children of the world demand cheaper gas. Why would you let us starve? Why do you want us to die? Why do you hate us so?"
Siegels statement says all periods where the PE was 13 - that is wrong.
My original comment that started all this was based upon this fact being BS which it is regardless of whether he uttered it last year, this year or any year. It ain't true.
I said: "I do admit I was wrong on the last 10-15 years."
By the way, when I make an error I admit it, why can't you?
The NYSE rules to let stand all trades in American Electric Power (AEP -1%) and NextEra Energy (NEE -1.2%) but prices for certain "aberrant" trades will be excluded from the high and low prices in data feeds. There were hundreds of trades early this morning in AEP at or below $46.03 and in NEE at or below $76.19, more than 50% below yesterday's closing prices. [View news story]
Electric vehicle roundup: 1) The tiny plug-in car market segment will have two entrants with lease options at $199 per month - the Chevrolet Spark (GM -1.3%) and the Nissan Leaf (NSANY.OB) - as the automakers appear willing to take some losses to keep the segment alive and kicking. 2) In China, an EV rental project in Beijing draws solid interest. Electric vehicles in the city are already popular for short commutes with over 2.7K electric taxis slated for service by the end of the year. 3) An Elon Musk interview on Bloomberg TV dissects the Tesal Motors (TSLA +1.8%) DOE loan payoff in great detail. He also says he thinks the automaker has enough capital to avoid future capital raises. (audio) [View news story]
" as the automakers appear willing to take some losses to keep the segment alive and kicking"
Now that's a sound business strategy. Lose money on every sale and make it up in volume :)
I do admit I was wrong on the last 10-15 years. I thought we got there at some point but that might explain why we had the second blow up in 2008. We just never got to the right PE to start a bull market. The strangest lesson here is that the best time to buy in the last 15 years was when the PE hit 128 and ultimately infinity - now that's stranger than fiction!
I like how you ignored this:
"I guarantee you that it is not true in all periods in history:)"
Both literal and clear.
He said to "get back in history" and I did.
You should spend the same effort analyzing and parsing his statement as you did mine, you might learn something!
I wasn't referring to whether it was correct last year but rather whether it was correct as a rule and please note the quote does not say last year. The statement says "We've never had when..." which is a generalization.
I guarantee you that it is not true in all periods in history:)
In fact I am sure I could find a period in the last 10-15 years in which that statement is incorrect.
Sorry I just happen to read things literally and hold people accountable to the statements they make regardless of whether your are bullish or bearish accuracy should be your goal.
I am so positive that this is BS, I won't bother to refute it :)
"When you start at a 13 price-earnings ratio, get back in history, the future is much, much brighter. We've never had bad stock returns over the next three, five, 10 years when you start with a 13 P/E ratio, and that's the world of difference."
Well the current PE's are way above that level now:
The Bernanke Agenda - It Isn't What You Think It Is [View article]
joseph,
"If you had read an article in 2006 that stated the stock market would crash and lose 60% in value"
That is an awesome premise for an article. Just a brilliant framing of the actual historical record.
Putting myself back in time I would have indeed agreed with your contention that I would have "said the author was an alarmist, a perma bear, a doomsdayer, he had a vivid imagination, he was a conspiracy nut, he was paranoid, he was delusional."
The reason I know I would have is that I said similar things to my brother who was predicting just such a catastrophe based upon what he was reading at the time.
California's got a new problem: Too much money. This year's expected surplus of $1.2B-$4.4B comes three years after the state faced a deficit of nearly $60B. Governor Brown - arguing the surplus is the result of a flood of capital-gains realizations ahead of higher 2013 tax rates - wants to put the money aside. The legislature - dominated by Brown's own party - wants to spend it. [View news story]
A retroactive tax is hardly a fair policy. That is as close as a government can get to stealing. Clearly in the short run you can manufacture a surplus if you want to by taking it away from the "rich" and the most productive segments of industry.
But will it be sustainable?
I say no. Especially now that those capital gains were harvested in anticipation of the threatened rise in taxes.
Reuters’ Robert Campbell thinks Keystone XL (TRP) has become a victim of political posturing and says a rival plan, ETP's Trunkline, is being held to a far lower standard thanks to an incoherent U.S. environmental policy. But if a pipeline isn’t built, crude will move by more carbon intensive methods that also are susceptible to accidents. Indeed, moving oil by road or rail is no longer seen as a stopgap until pipelines are built. [View news story]
He would do anything to stop it and it looks like he has :)
Now that's getting a return on investment for your crony capitalist.
Reuters’ Robert Campbell thinks Keystone XL (TRP) has become a victim of political posturing and says a rival plan, ETP's Trunkline, is being held to a far lower standard thanks to an incoherent U.S. environmental policy. But if a pipeline isn’t built, crude will move by more carbon intensive methods that also are susceptible to accidents. Indeed, moving oil by road or rail is no longer seen as a stopgap until pipelines are built. [View news story]
Perhaps that will work. Smirk!
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
It must be infuriating to be one of your friends.
Siegels statement says all periods where the PE was 13 - that is wrong.
My original comment that started all this was based upon this fact being BS which it is regardless of whether he uttered it last year, this year or any year. It ain't true.
I said: "I do admit I was wrong on the last 10-15 years."
By the way, when I make an error I admit it, why can't you?
Good luck and good investing :)
The NYSE rules to let stand all trades in American Electric Power (AEP -1%) and NextEra Energy (NEE -1.2%) but prices for certain "aberrant" trades will be excluded from the high and low prices in data feeds. There were hundreds of trades early this morning in AEP at or below $46.03 and in NEE at or below $76.19, more than 50% below yesterday's closing prices. [View news story]
Electric vehicle roundup: 1) The tiny plug-in car market segment will have two entrants with lease options at $199 per month - the Chevrolet Spark (GM -1.3%) and the Nissan Leaf (NSANY.OB) - as the automakers appear willing to take some losses to keep the segment alive and kicking. 2) In China, an EV rental project in Beijing draws solid interest. Electric vehicles in the city are already popular for short commutes with over 2.7K electric taxis slated for service by the end of the year. 3) An Elon Musk interview on Bloomberg TV dissects the Tesal Motors (TSLA +1.8%) DOE loan payoff in great detail. He also says he thinks the automaker has enough capital to avoid future capital raises. (audio) [View news story]
Now that's a sound business strategy. Lose money on every sale and make it up in volume :)
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
I do admit I was wrong on the last 10-15 years. I thought we got there at some point but that might explain why we had the second blow up in 2008. We just never got to the right PE to start a bull market. The strangest lesson here is that the best time to buy in the last 15 years was when the PE hit 128 and ultimately infinity - now that's stranger than fiction!
I like how you ignored this:
"I guarantee you that it is not true in all periods in history:)"
Both literal and clear.
He said to "get back in history" and I did.
You should spend the same effort analyzing and parsing his statement as you did mine, you might learn something!
I refuted his statement what else do you need?
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
I did not make the statement he did!
You are clearly not interested in any data that contradicts your viewpoint.
In the history of the stock market there is going to be at least one period where Jeremy's statement is invalid. Here is just one example:
http://bit.ly/YXQbmw
Any year during the 1915-1928 period would fit the bill. There are others. During secular bear markets you get wiped out!
If he had said any period with a PE of less than 10 then I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt.
When you invest is more important than any other factor. Just ask a firsttime Nasdaq investor in 2000.
Have a nice day!
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
I wasn't referring to whether it was correct last year but rather whether it was correct as a rule and please note the quote does not say last year. The statement says "We've never had when..." which is a generalization.
I guarantee you that it is not true in all periods in history:)
In fact I am sure I could find a period in the last 10-15 years in which that statement is incorrect.
Sorry I just happen to read things literally and hold people accountable to the statements they make regardless of whether your are bullish or bearish accuracy should be your goal.
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
"Ignore him since refused to say what the "long run" is even when water boarded."
HILARIOUS!
The thing about Siegel is he is usually most vocal and most visible just before something bad happens - he really is a contrarian indicator :)
Jeremy Siegel: Dow 17,000 In 2013 [View article]
"When you start at a 13 price-earnings ratio, get back in history, the future is much, much brighter. We've never had bad stock returns over the next three, five, 10 years when you start with a 13 P/E ratio, and that's the world of difference."
Well the current PE's are way above that level now:
http://on.wsj.com/sXXWWp
http://bit.ly/JNT7Io
The Bernanke Agenda - It Isn't What You Think It Is [View article]
We closed at 1666.
How does that fit into your narrative?
Apr. Chicago Fed National Activity Index: -0.53 vs. -0.23 prior. [View news story]
http://bit.ly/15KidEK
May Philly Fed Business Outlook: -5.2 vs. +2.4 expected, +1.3 previous. [View news story]
The Bernanke Agenda - It Isn't What You Think It Is [View article]
"If you had read an article in 2006 that stated the stock market would crash and lose 60% in value"
That is an awesome premise for an article. Just a brilliant framing of the actual historical record.
Putting myself back in time I would have indeed agreed with your contention that I would have "said the author was an alarmist, a perma bear, a doomsdayer, he had a vivid imagination, he was a conspiracy nut, he was paranoid, he was delusional."
The reason I know I would have is that I said similar things to my brother who was predicting just such a catastrophe based upon what he was reading at the time.